littlebillie

Even tho Thanksgiving - and I'm just addressing that, here - has religious roots, and indeed for many is still at least a quasi-religious holiday, it can also be a day of appreciation for the non-religious. Thanksgiving is the quintessential American holiday, meaningful to those whose families came over on the Mayflower, and to those who just got here last week. Granted, it's been a while since the Native American has had a whole lot to be Thankful for, but even that is starting to turn around.

It's NOT a holiday to play with explosives, or see how much you can drink - it's a day for family and friends to get together, to pray across boundaries if that is their wont, or to simply enjoy each other in a way that escapes us all too often.

Thanksgiving can be religious OR secular, and urges us all to appreciate our blessings and/or good fortune, to celebrate history and tradition, and to find a touchstone at Plymouth Rock and Ellis Island.

Do many lack things for which to be Thankful? Certainly - reach out to them. Scouts pretty much ALL have some kind of program this time of year that gets that message thru. Do many misunderstand? sure - invite a newcomer to your Thanksgiving table.

One can give thanks or simply appreciate a number of different ways - doesn't matter how it's done.

Many nations celebrate their own Independence Days, and the various religious holidays - Thanksgiving as we know it is a truly American holiday, and can stand outside the arguments about religion, thank you very much.

"The Constitution should not be reinterpreted by each new generation so to accommodate the political whims of the day..." nor by those who, supposing some religious siblinghood with the Founding Fathers, claim extraConstitutional knowledge of their intent in penning both that document and the Bill of Rights, and declare that their trance-channeled insight should supercede that whichis written...

"So now that we are talking about the slave-owning founding fathers and their "avowed" positions, I

am not allowed to tie this back to the origin of this thread?"

"First, try to keep up. I think if you do a little rereading, youll discover that there was a progression to this thread and the conversation did make a distinct turn."

So the answer is that I AM NOT ALLOWED to return to the origin of the thread and exercise my right of free speech, free association and conversational repair? I wouldn't have thought that, but again, thanks for straightening me out on how things are done on the boards.

"its becoming clearer to me as to what your

perspective is here. While I acknowledge that some of our founding fathers owned slaves, I am in no position to judge them." Nor I. But I do know that as a society we have gotten past certain of our 'Roots' and that the founding fathers gave us something that stood apart from them. Slavery WAS referenced in the constitution, and it took an amendment to clean that up. Chritianity is NOT referenced in the Constitution, and all talk about "agreed upons" is no more than that - talk - when we reference the FFs in association with the Constitution. The "Christian principles" that have been ballyhooed here were principles elsewhere BEFORE Christianity - at least as covers murder, theft, etc. Where I am coming from is that the Founding Fathers were wise enough to give us a working living foundation that could accommodate changing times (well, except maybe that right to bear arms thing that causes so much debate, in this day when there exists automatic weaponry that coulda wiped out an entire.... ok that's another conversation! :-)

I am saying I know what they wrote - you seem to be saying you know what they intended. But which shows up more clearly in the Constitution? My intent is that if you want to INTERPRET the Founding Fathers, you need to consider all we know about them, and spread it out on the table. But if you want to know what they launched this country with, you only need read the Constitution.

let's go with it!

The Church of the Plate, Tectonic

Temple of the General Relativists

Gestaltology

The Pythagorean Trinity,

Church of the Righteous Angle

Omegan Fermatology

Why does one theory become a religion, but others don't? God gives us clues in the earth to deceive us and thereby test our faith? Such falsehood detracts from God, whereas intellignet control of billions of years of evolution adds to His Glory...

"let's kick it up a notch"

So now that we are talking about the slave-owning founding fathers and ther "avowed" positions, I am not allowed to tie this back to the origin of this thread? See, I didn't know that rule. one is less surprised as to why so little agreement comes about...

Oh, and by the way, "Clinton's lie" was a specific example relating to Rooster7's generality. Apparently we are not supposed to test general remarks against specific incidents, either. Now, THAT policy can certainly allow Genesis Creation to stand unquestioned, I suppose...

" Evolution, therefore, is a religous belief. " you know, I'd say if this is true, then recorded music is idolatry and so a religous belief as well - golly we can extend that logic WAY far afield!

acco40 "Rooster, saying what someone says in private or public doesn't matter is comical." D'accord!

Rooster7 " Whether or not any of these quotes were made publicly or privately is a meritless point" Well, that whole public/private thing really seems to go to the heart of the matter religion matter, in my view - public versus private seems to be at the heart of avowal, and Lambert, had he kept things private, would not have come to our public attention.

Robk, "Government sponsored education is unconditionally, fundamentally unconstitutional." While the Government has no Constitutionally-specific authority, where is it written, therein, that Congress is PRECLUDED from the creation of law addressing this, or that the President must veto any such law should it be placed before him?

Indeed "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and

Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States" ok. let's trim that a bit to get to what I see in it: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and... collect Taxes...to....provide for the ... general

Welfare of the United States". Education is part of the general Welfare, I would argue (and by 'general', I will further posit we can mean 'national'), and so the making of Law addressing that education is not outside the scope of Congressional powers.

Add to that the power "To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof", and I really can't see how our tax-funded Public Education System is 'unconstitutional'.

Is your objection to the federal allocation of moneys, or to the compulsory nature of the current system?

Rooster7, you disappoint me - instead of asking questions, you jump to conclusions. " It is rather obvious by the selection of your quotes that you feel the founding fathers were something other than Christian. One can further conclude that you feel Christian principles should not govern our laws."

Something other than Christian - well, yes, Deism falls into that category, I suppose, as does the Old Testament w/out the New, but it's still religious and devout, and how Jefferson, Franklin and others are seen today - as Deists, I mean. Why is that troubling? As far as "One... further conclud[ing] that feel Christian principles should not govern our laws", rather, I would say that those principles that Christianity shares with all or the majority of world religions (don't murder, don't rob, don't adulter, etc) and ethical systems should indeed become law; the rest (diet? fibers? say of the week to reflect?) should be left to the individual, and to the family and their chosen religious community. The rendering unto Caesar, after all.

Our founding fathers saw the wisdom in this and deliberately refrained from the codification of those principles you say they held, leaving the doors open to all comers. I say, BRAVO!

wow, no need to shout - looks as tho a nerve was touched!

ok. first, many (not all, certainly and granted) of your quotes suggest Deism, rather than Christianity. Second, some of this would certainly seem to touch on the "avowal" issue, wouldn't you think? What's said in private versus what's said in public? Finally, finding MORE quotes - does that really matter? I think you may find more protestations of innocence than guilt upon death row, but (DNA notwithstanding), what does that really prove?

Private letters, public treaties - I don't think the whole founding fathers "agreed upons" stands on as firm legs as many would have us believe.

Which is great, from a religious freedom perspective. There were a number of views on religion, and rather than directing us down that road, the FF chose to leave that path open to the individual - ANY individual. Otherwise, why would they NOT have set up the Ten Commandmets, say, as the heart of all our laws?

Oh, and no shouting this time!

For those who are interested in the founding fathers, here are some excerpts take from http://www.dimensional.com/~randl/founders.htm

John Adams, the country's second president, was drawn to the study of law but faced pressure from his father to become a clergyman. He wrote that he found among the lawyers 'noble and gallant achievments" but among the clergy, the "pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces". Late in life he wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

From: The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw

Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose manifestos encouraged the faltering spirits of the country and aided materially in winning the war of Independence: I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."

Thomas Jefferson, third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the evelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote: The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

From: Thomas Jefferson, an Intimate History by Fawn M. Brodie

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter." -- Thomas Jefferson (letter to J. Adams April 11,1823)

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, was not religious in any conventional sense. "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

From: The Madisons by Virginia Moore

Benjamin Franklin, delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied

it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble." He died a month later, and historians consider him, like so many great Americans of his time, to be a Deist, not a Christian.

From:

Benjamin Franklin, A Biography in his Own Words, edited by Thomas Fleming

CubsRgr8,

I've already given examples which your own comments seemed to exclude from the general discourse. Anyone who can say "my faith has failed, but I support all those who can maintain their own beliefs" can, I think, sign this in all good conscience. Cerain megalomaniacal individuals who believe themselves to be "above the rest" may also, in a fit of superiority, declare that religion betters the masses. Not my fave kind of folk, but of course there are those who say theirs is the only true religion who are like unto these, personality-wise...

moving on to all the "agreed upon standards". we are a nation built on law, the Constitution gives us certain guidelines, and until law and Constituion can pass thru SCOTUS and declare America is a Christian nation by amendnment and writ, that "agreed upon standard" makes a nice talking point, but not much else.

once we start making this a nation of religious tenets instead of a nation of law - oh, wait, didn't they try that in Afghanistan? "come Mr Taliban, tally me bananas..."

Law can stand regardless of faith; and true, Christianity can stand regardless of law. While Commandments can contribute to a nation's laws, there have been injunctions against murder (for example) down thru the ages, and of course Moses was not the first to pass along a Shalt not. It's probably better to look on religion as a moral or ethical overlay (like area codes!). First, the law says this for ALL of us - then, after that, you can decide to keep kosher if you wish.

Trhough Crusades and pogroms, witch hunts and special dispensations, Christianity has certainly taken its black eyes, and to speak of it as a model of tolerance, esp. in view of some of the postings here in re gay Americans, well... maybe in a perfect interpretation, but so far I know only one who's been awarded that status, and how are we to know if the current take is the intended take?

Folks who say Genesis creation is literal, but INTERPRET other verses the way they want - well, THAT seems a little facile, still.

The founding fathers decided to go with religious tolerance, rather than Christianity. Who am I to second guess them? I know the rules they set up for us as a civil society - I can follow my own faith, and welcome other faiths and non-faiths under that umbrella without getting much ruffled at all.

Packsaddle, founder of the Welchian devotees - good call!

" It's simply an agreed upon standard. "

Uh-huh - and this is written down in the rule book (Constitution)where exactly, this Judeo-Christian thing, this agreed upon standard? And I think there was a different standard before the Europeans got here, what happened to that?

And if a HUGE bunch o' Buddhists moved here and became the majority population, would the standard change or...?

Maybe it's time for a Constitutional Amendment - maybe even a Convention for a full rewrite - before that happens, to establish our national religious standards once and for all as Judeo-Christian and the rest of you can like it or lump it.

Sorry, I'm being a little flip here. I do apologize. But this standard thing - yes, I've heard they were all such and so and this and that, the signers of the Declaration. But where does the Constitution say we all agree to be Jewish or Christian, and that's IT!?

"Send me your tired, your poor, your Christian masses yearning to breathe free"?

"It doesn't even mean they must believe in the same morals. It does mean - all peoples are expected to behave in a way that complies with that standard. "

Um - are you saying, you don't have to believe in my religion, but you have to act as tho' you do?

and - are you saying no equal time for all religions, it's just gonna be that Old and New T stuff?

you really underestimate the utility of the Golden Rule, methinks, as close to universal dictum as humankind has e'er spoke! one way or another, stated positively (do as you would have done) or negatively (do not do as you would not have done), stated poeteically or prosaically, religiously or laically, it's predated 0 AD by many many years, and seems a firm foundation for any non-religiously preferential course on ethics (as opposed to a religiously based morality). and if you insist, it provides a lovely stepping stone for a comparative religion discussion, that considers ALL faiths and cultures.

AND for universality out of diversity...

Hammurabai rocks!

definitely letters to the editor of the local papers, and if your community has a local tv station, bring it to their attention, as well.

frankly, there may be Civil Rights issues involved, and while I hate to think about what some may say about this, you may want to bring it to the attention of the ACLU. Seems like number one denied is both cruel AND unusual...

CubsRgr8, let's find specifically "accepting the existence of God" in the following:

"The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training. The Boy Scouts of America's policy is that the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected shall give definite attention to religious life. Only persons willing to subscribe to this Declaration of Religious Principle and to the bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America shall be entitled to certificates of leadership."

Question at large - COULD AN ATHEIST SIGN THIS WITHOUT DUPLCITY, HYPOCRISY OR FRAUD? In the above verbiage, subscription to this declaration of principle does not seem to confirm that the signee him/herself in fact holds a belief in God.

"BSA adult leaders, who ... "omit"

words/phrases from the ... Pledge of Allegience,

are being dishonest with themselves."

Are you suggesting that the exercise of Free Speech to acknowledge separation of Church and State for those who independently OMIT "under God" from the pledge is something that should get them kicked out of Scouts?! More importantly, you're saying that's BEING DISHONEST WITH ONE'S SELF? Seems to me like that specific case is a greater honesty. Hey, do you get a ticket for rewording the pledge? Arrested? What's the law on that one.

Curiously....

Weekender, " And yes, I believe America was

founded on Judeo-Christian values and so were the schools."

So - are you saying that the schools should keep that Judeo-Christian thing happening, regardless of the faiths of the children in attendance, and their families, and their teachers? Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, whatever - all gotta take the Judeo-Christian orientation classes? You really need to elaborate on this - if that is your stance, just say so, and if it isn't, please try to clarify, cause it kinda comes across that way...

http://www.diversityingirlscouts.org/

I haven't heard back if there's any new info on this. Is there anyone in that neck of the woods who has iany info on the situation?

Thanks

Weekender - "A child who reveres God, respects others, and knows they have value". Hmmm - see, that's not what public schools are supposed to produce - that's what parents are supposed to produce. I think a kid needs to learn this properly and completely at home, first, and then in their church. then when the school system gets them, the kids are good to go! My kid KNOWS he has value, and I know he has VALUES - I'm sorry your background DEvalues the parents' roles in this. From my perspective, the public schools are NOT there to take my place in teaching ethics or self-respect or filial devotion or reverence for God, and most especially not the specifics and details of my religion. That should not be what a PUBLIC school teaches.

Once they start that, where do you suggest it end? Teach Christian precepts and stop? Teach Judaica to the Buddhists and let it go at that? Teach one religion, ya gotta teach them all, in public school.

Schools ARE trying to get their arms around diversity in a way that is all inclusive, and showing us that all people have value - unfortunately in the eyes of some, this includes gays. So - diversity gets trashed...

Let the public schools teach the reading, writing, basic science, auto shop and etc. If this isn't good enough for you, and you can't teach the necessary ethics, values and morals yourself, send your child to a private school, a religious school, whatever.

Whew, never thought of THIS way before, but this really is so much easier on folks who accept a symbolic rather than a literal genesis.

And hey, W'ender, just where do you get off insinuating that I promote the devaluation of life?!? Apparently you'd like to see the devaluation of truth and fact be taught in the schools. Fer cryin' out loud....

Oh, wait, I know :-)

If you don't like the current public schools, start your OWN public school system!!!!

CubsRgr8

"But I never deny the worth of any one of those values..."

You say that, but you seem to really think that there are no atheists who can see the value of religion for others, and who would encourage others to keep their faith if the can.

If a person cannot themselves believe, but encourages the comfort and direction and belonging that faith can bring for others, wha problem do you have with that? We had a couple of boys from a two-dad family in our original Pack before the school kicked us out. Should those boys have not been allowed to join?

Ya know, these are only a couple of the many shades of gray that stand between the black and white that others seem to think defines the world.

The word is avowed. And the excerpts posted here seem only to address supporting faith, not necessarily having it.

tjhammer, well said, thanks!

CubsRgr8,

Ok, consider a priest who, while himself having lost his faith, continues ministering to his flock so as not to abandon them or impact theirs. Any thoughts on this person?

How about the widowed dad who suddenly realizes he's gay, but keeps it to himself. What if he never acts on it? What if he does and no one knows and he doesn't politicize or proselyetize?

What about anyone who occasionally has doubts about their faith, supports the flag-burning decision, drinks, smokes or swears, whatever - who decides never to try to influence someone else on a matter of individual conscience, and never does any of the stuff in front of the kids?

I personally consider anyone who can be associated with a totally non-smoking, non-drinking, neverdoubting bunch o' folks in a troop or pack parent structure to be pretty lucky.

Me, for example - I accept evolution and have no religious conflict as a result, but I am NOT going to mention evolution to my kids while addressing Naturalist or whatever, just because it IS a touch subject for some. Likewise, my Den didn't do a darned thing for Halloween - I don't have a problem, but many do, and I won't impose. Now, given Halloween and evolution. Since some folks think believing in evolution automatically makes you an atheist, should I be kicked out?

As far as the pledge of Allegiance goes, i know folks who always omit 'under God', for the same reasons as the recent court decision, but nevertheless say and mean the rest of it - and when the kids are around and might actually hear the omission, they put it back in - for the kids' sake, and their families'. What's your take on that?

I guess I see too much gray...

"Is it worth me dealing with your questions? I do not know." Are my questions worth your time? That's pretty close to insulting, is that your real intent?

"You have not entertained one thing I have said to date." Well, since your original question was posed in a fact-finding manner, I wasn't aware that in fact it was an invitation to have my mind changed! Ummm - have YOU entertained one thing that I have said? Not sure if that's any more germane than your comment, tho'...

"I can only see this leading to more debate." Well, duhhh! (TOV - humorous). What were you expecting posting a question like that?

OK, let's get down to some linguistic questions. In Genesis, prior to its Roman- and Anglic- izations, way bacj when, there are scholars who point out that the noun used in reference to any deity was elohim, the plural - gods - and not the singular form. Comments?

The word yom - I read - can be used to refer to a 12 hour period, a 24 hour period, and a period of vast, indeterminate length. Comments?

There are those who say the passage in Leviticus prohibiting a man lying with a man as with a woman, actually referred, in the original texts, to a male temple prostitute, and that there are NO injunctions against Lesbians. Comments?

Don't know if these meets your criteria for response...

(first, i gotta tell ya, I don't think i have anything in my profile either - some boards can end up with some real whackos, and I am just cowardly enough to wish to give nothing to be traceable, just in case. While I do try not to be "too in your face" insulting, sometimes - w/out TOV and the smile on my face - ya just couldn't tell.

my apologies for that, if it's an issue... email me, and if you're someone I've come to respect on this board, cool...)

anyway.

not to take away from Bush - or anyone, or to give anything to anyone, either - but I sometimes wonder if the idea of the Presidency as we know it isn't in need of some re-vamping. Certainly, government is pretty well constructed, but I wonder how any one single human being can in fact "lead" such a complex entity as 21st century America? I sometimes think we need an Executive President, and two real working Vice Presidents, one domestic, one international. Any bill would need 2 out of 3 signatures to go into law, etc., etc. I don't know, for sure, but at least that would set the ratio at one exec per 100 million foks! :-)

If we are trying to elect someone who's a genius, well... is that all we need? Someone with a lot of heart and humanitarianism - Jimmy Carter, say, and again with ALL due respect - may be better off in other endeavors. Certainly he's remembered more for peanuts prior to the White House, and for providing houses to people after.

What are all the qualities we look for in a President?

I sometimes wonder if someone who's been in politics all their lives is really the best choice (I know Bush hasn't, of course, but I suspect some grooming went on). Lawyers? Wrong side of town for most folks. How do the privileged really understand the rest of the country?

But sadly, it's the folks with money who CAN campaign - and I'd bet that many an average Jane or Joe could be a darned good Pres - probably even some of the folks on this board! But most of you will never get a chance! Ok - that's neither here nor there, I know, and a lot of folks would never TAKE the chance, even if they got it, and it's NOT a criticism of the system, anyway - just life!

Leadership of a diverse, segmented, multicultural population is a difficult thing. Trying to keep everyone happy would paralyze the function. Being "Quick on the trigger" may be called for sometimes, but at other times certainly not.

I haven't thot this thru myself, but someone once asked me if I noticed how everything started to fall apart after the death of J. Edgar Hoover... hmmm.

Does any President get a clean slate when they first sit down behind that desk? there's a TON o' stuff left over from the predecessor, some good, some bad, and trying to rebuild everything from the ground up every four years - well, let's say it's not the best use of someone's time. Clean house? yes. Rebuild it? no.

well, I'm taking the long way around the lake to get to this - I thing some things are forced upon a President by the events of current history. Some think any recent sitting President would have handle the Cuban Missile Crisis pretty much as Kennedy did. Still, one has to wonder about Viet Nam. Johnson had his hands full with that, and it truly tarnished much of the Great Society. Eisenhower WARNED us about the military industrial complex, but I know a lot of retirees looking for military action in the middle east to stimulate that old wartime economy!

HOW CAN ONE HUMAN BEING COMPETENTLY DEAL WITH ALL OF THIS?

Well, I know I couldn't. And while I doubt that Bush by himself can, you gotta have hope and faith in his cabinet. And Powell needs.... ok, that's WAY off track.

911 was forced upon Bush, and he reacted admirably. Currently, I have strong doubts about the wisdom of the US playing the world's vigilante, but I'm prepared to wait and see what the hardandfinal plan might come to be, and of course until then, I'll withhold judgement.

crikey, I'm a-ramblin!

firstpusk,

thanks for jumping in. yes, I think the time evident in the carving of the Grand Canyon, say, suggests an earth older than the Bible would allow, and earth old enough to allow for some degree of evolution.

and I'm also interested in this - I don't think anyone can deny that EROSION takes place, but it seems to me that in some ways this is the same kind of change folks decry in evolution. God makes a geological world, and then changes it - this seems ok to many; God makes a BIOLOGICAL world and then freezes it in place? This makes sense?

Basically, does the stance boil down to, the world was not created the way God intended, just at first, so He put erosion into play? This works for rocks and dunes and tectonic plates, but not for species?

I am VERY interested in how an intelligent literalist reconciles the 2. And NOT based on Biblical verses that simply RECOGNIZE that erosion exists - the complete crumbling of mountains, from peak to plain, is NOT something that would have been noted in a single lifetime (tho' some crumbling, avalanche, stream erosions may certainly have), nor for the region in which the original texts were written, in the 4-6,000 (*maybe 8 by now?) span that some say the Bible allows.

(Once we bring in Biblical texts, I just gotta go back to the 4 legged crickets and katydids, and ask where they went and the 6 legged ones we know today came from?)

So no simple acknowledgements, please - what is the purpose, the point, the God-given reason, for erosion, and how does this kind of change over time differ from evolution?

St. Augustine is one of the perfect examples, btw. Far back enough to be "untainted" by theories of evolution and plate tectonics, aware enough to nonetheless consider the issues. (My fave has always T-de Chardin, authority on angels AND embracer of science - firstpusk, I'll also assume that you've read Gould's theory on him and the Piltdown man? fun stuff...)

and while we're on this geological thing, what would the purpose of fossils be? Did God create something misleading in the heart of His creation? Did he allow Satan to place stony deception in the earth? Is it a "test of faith" (as in, the faithful must believe in a young God of only a few thousand years of influence, versus an older God, of 14,000,000,000 years experience? isn't this the Alcharinga of the Aborigine?)

just what DO the rocks tell us!?

"For a leader to deny any one of these values makes them unacceptable to continue serving as a leader."

consider this change...

"For a leader to openly and publically deny any one of these values, in front of the youth membership, makes them unacceptable to continue serving as a leader."

RoosterVII

"Hmmm. How do you suggest we handle rapists? Murders?" Same way we handle child molestersm gay OR straight. Lock 'em away for the good of society. Maybe even execute them.

Please know that I restrict my consideration and support of the gay community to those adults who enter into loving consensual relationships with other adults. Take that as a given in considering anything I say about the subject.

Good, that's done.

"New interpretations popped up when society matured and decided they wanted Gods blessings for behavior they knew was sinful."

The 'interpretations' to which I refer indicate that the original Leviticus was referring to lying with male temple prostitutes. And curiously, while bestiality is prohibited to both men AND women, regardless of the role of the males previously mentioned, the act seems to be forbidden to men only. I await further scholarship...

"Dr Laura..." was not the target of my comments, but anyone who was not a virgin at their first marriage, or who has commited adultery, whatever. abstinence is easy to call for in others... from these I expect at the least verbiage that acknowledges that the burning of the flesh is difficult to ignore, and that many on both sides of the preferential fence stray. until you see the commonalities, you cannot properly understand the differences.

Finally, i must ask - did you choose the name Billy Bob for the ram because of Billy Bob the Thornton, whose marriage was destroyed by infidelity?